Talk:Erika Steinbach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Saw exhibition

I saw the exhibition of the Federation fo Expellees in Berlin. I need to say that there was nothing revisionist about it. The exhibition explicitly mentioned Hitler's invasion in Poland which lead to the outbreak of the war. Moreover, this information everyone learns at school and there are many museums about the Nazis, concentration camps and the Holocaust. Rightfully so. Thus, you need to be very ignorant not to know that. I wouldn't call it a superb exhibition, but it was informative and pragmatic. So it's worth seeing, since it shows many topics which are totally neglected by much of the public. I had never heard of the fate of many people and ethnicities, and it was interesting to learn about it all. Of course I knew about the Holocaust and the other Nazi crimes, but did I know about the 2 million Poles who were deported by Stalin to Siberia? Never heard of it until I saw this exhibition. So I think it's an important addition to the musuems already existing.


[edit] Remaining objective

I know there was much written about Erika Steinbach. But she isn't as bad as most of us think. For example, some Polish newspapers continue to write, that Erika Steinbach is asking the Polish government for compensation for German expellees. This is 100% not true, she is not supportung compensation claims, and she officially stated that several times. So don't be so worried, she is not as bad as she is portrayed. She also had a speech about the Polish people and the Warsaw uprising and she underscored the historic plights of the Polish people and her respect for Polish patriotism. She also wants good relationships with Poland, even if the media often portrays her so awfully. And I think it has a simple reason: She reminds us that there was German expellees, and some people wish they had never even lived in Silesia or Pomerania. It's histroy, it's past. But they were there, we need to accept it. Not every single one of them was a war criminal who deserved it. Why is this so hard to accept? After all, I see these people as a bridge, not a problem (only a minority amongst them is a problem, and this is the Prussian Trust and these type of organizations claiming compensations). There are many museums about Polish suffering and the Holocaust is internationally known, too. So there is no need to be so worried, that people will forget the context. I think the context argument is more of an excuse than anything.

[edit] Comments requested

I was invited to take a look at this page from Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I find it disappointing that the same issue (how to describe her birthplace) is still being debated over so many months. I am still partial to my suggested wording from March, which Lysy supported. Any opinions on using a variation of that? Olessi 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text of Olessi's suggested wording.

I agree with the "international disapproval" of the Nazi annexation. Her bio intro looks like a mess now with all of its "citations needed". Something simple like "Steinbach was born in Rumia (German: Rahmel) in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, part of Nazi-occupied Poland. Her father, Wilhelm Karl Hermann, was a..." Feel free to touch up the suggested wording. If the reader wants to learn more information about the village, he/she can easily find it at its own article. Olessi 18:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to close vote

I have been requested to close this vote so that a "more neutral vote" can be started. (for details, see my Talk Page. It may be that I started the vote prematurely. If so, I apologize.

The question here becomes... what is our goal? My goal is to see this page stabilize with a long-term solution to the Rumia/Rahmel question. While one could argue that the current vote is running 9-3 against Jagder, Stettiner et al, it seems that only an overwhelming, near-unanimous vote can keep us from a resumption of the edit-warring that got us here in the first place.

I am not convinced that Jagder's proposal will result in a different and more desirable result but it's worth trying if it will get Jagder, Stettiner et al. to sign on to the result.

I am willing to close the vote that I started if no one objects.

--Richard 04:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So far only Jadger has a problem with how this vote was conducted. His complaints received no support from anyone else. Effectively throwing out a vote which was 9:3 in support because one voter objects is a curious echo of Liberum Veto, and old Polish institution. Still, if you feel you must humor him, and that 12 people have to waste their time to vote on essentially the same question for the second time, go ahead and restart the poll. Balcer 04:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not thrilled with restarting the vote but I am more interested in seeing the dispute resolved and the page unprotected. I will wait a day and see if anybody else objects. --Richard 05:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
We have a clear 75% community consensus here. Are you not happy with this ? Do you think another vote will yield better results ? --Lysytalk 05:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
75% is not a consensus, it is a supermajority substituting as a proxy for consensus. Consensus is unanimous consent. We do not have that. Now, we can try to ram the 75% vote down the throats of Jagder and Stettiner or we can try to find a mutually-acceptable compromise. I worry that, if we do not work towards true consensus, then we will just go back to edit-warring once the protection is lifted. Do you really want to go through dispute resolution with mediation and RFC? --Richard 05:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I am pessimistic, unfortunately. I respect Jadger, but the present dispute shows that the consensus is not possible, regardless of how many times we will repeat voting. The Olessi's version was a carefully negotiated compromise. Every now and then somebody will come and try to push it his way. What we need is to have a compromise version and defend it in order to stop lots and lots of future edit wars. I don't expect everybody to be 100% happy with it, but I hope the majority can live with it. Now, with all due respect, I don't think the vote should be repeated only because you changed your mind or because the losing party is unhappy, do you ? This can go on forever this way. --Lysytalk 06:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
First, it's true that I changed my vote from "Support" to "Abstain". I do not feel strongly about this Rahmel/Rumia question at all. However, I did notice that my vote was inconsistent with the solution I proposed earlier about attempting to determine what Steinbach's birth certificate would have said. So I retracted my vote in order to remain consistent with that earlier stance.
My willingness to close the vote is primarily an attempt to find a way for Jagder and Stettiner to be accomodated with a compromise that satisfies them and will encourage them to defend the final resolution. (i.e. not to fight it via edit warring or resurfacing the issue again later).
I do think votes should not be used as a means of deciding an issue democratically but rather a means of determining if a consensus exists. In other words, "Yes, I do think we should consider the vote to have failed if the losing party is unhappy."
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Making decisions by consensus does not mean voting and then going with the majority (or even supermajority) vote. It means trying to find a mutually-acceptable compromise. This is a lot harder but ultimately longer-lasting. If nothing else, what makes you think that the vote will always run 9-3 in favor of your solution? A few months from now, it could run 9-3 the other way. Depends on who's voting, right?
--Richard 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I fully support that Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, in the lack of consensus, given the history of revert wars on this, apparently marginal, issue, we have been looking for a compromise solution. The version that we have negotiated with Olessi in March was a compromise, that is neither myself nor probably Olessi was 100% happy with it. Of course one can expect that after some time a more extremist editor will challenge it, as happened now. I think the right thing for the community to do would be to defend the reached compromise, instead of trying to break it. This did not happen, unfortunately. I'm afraid that we won't get anything better than the current 75% support and certainly not 100% support with another voting. What we are looking for is not a solution that would satisfy everyone, but a technical measure to prevent edit-wars and I think the result of the current vote is just it. All we can do from now on is only step back and spoil it. --Lysytalk 07:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
We also have to consider that User:Stettiner has made so far only 75 edits to Wikipedia, a large number of them on this page. His first edit was made as recently as 13 September 2006, on this very page. Hence all the concerns described in Wikipedia:Single purpose account apply here. User:Schwartz und Weiss (another single purpose account) has only made 130 edits over more than 2 years, most of them in counterproductive revert wars over German names. Now, Jadger has alleged that me bringing up these statistics constitutes a form of personal attack. Nothing could be further from the truth. The number of contributions made to Wikipedia is simply one piece of information that can be used to judge the importance of the given users vote. Anyway, what this seems to suggest is that we really have a vote of 9 to 1 here, if we count established, credible users only. That gives 90% support of Olessi's proposal, which looks like concensus to me. Balcer 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well then, if no one objects, we should close this vote soon. I propose that we close the vote if there are not any substantial number of votes in the next 24 hours. (Please, no sock puppets or WikiFriends dragged in to stuff the ballot box.) Then, someone should ask the admin who protected the page to unprotect it so that we can insert the compromise wording.
We should agree that Jagder is free to propose a vote on his proposal immediately afterwards. However, I hope we can all agree to discuss here rather than edit warring. --Richard 16:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not "immediately afterwards". The reason for the voting is to find consensus (or supermajority if you like) support of a stable version, and at least several months grace period would be in place between subsequent votes. Secondly, I would suggest that the form and proposals of any future vote are thoroughly discussed before it is started, otherwise we'll end up with a series of "Jadger's vote", "Lysy's vote" and what not. I for one would change the proposed Jadger's wording and I'm sure others could have their opinion at it, too. As I said, I respect Jadger as an editor, but such pushing against the community is not appropriate. --Lysytalk 17:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree in principle that a consensus should be allowed some period of stability so that we are not constantly re-voting issues. On the other hand, I hope you will make an exception in this case since Jagder's complaint is that the original vote was poorly framed due to my prematurely opening the vote without adequate discussion beforehand. (I'm a relative newbie at this kind of thing.) Someone voted for the proposal with the remark that the Rumia first vs. Rahmel first could be done as a subsequent follow-up vote. I imagine that Jagder may have some tweaks that he might like to propose to the compromise solution. I see the compromise solution as a way to get this page unprotected. Editors should feel free to continue the discussion on this Talk Page as long as they do not disrupt Wikipedia by edit warring on the actual article page. --Richard 17:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
While I feel rather strongly about Nazi occupation of Poland and any attempts to picture it as "liberation", of course it's not my intention (and neither I would be able to) keep Jadger's mouth closed. I'm sure he'll be willing to work towards a compromise as well, although personally, I feel I could not move a step further than the current proposal, which I considered difficult to accept already in March. Thanks for trying to stay impartial on all this. --Lysytalk 18:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it admirable that you want to satisfy Jadger, but please also keep in mind there are 10 editors (at this point) who support Olessi's proposal and who want to put this whole sorry fight behind them as soon as possible. From my point of view, Jadger's demands are not reasonable. Using a bit of mathematical language, the current vote is to choose between option A vs option not-A (not-A meaning we go back to the drawing board). This vote is at present 10:3 (or 10:1 discounting single purpose accounts). Jadger demands a new vote with A vs B. Why does he expect that the result of that vote will be any different? Why would people who voted for A this time vote for B in the next vote? After all, if they wanted to do this, they could have changed their votes in the current vote, as we speak. But it is possible that they will get disgusted with the first vote being thrown out and simply walk away without voting the second time. Maybe that is what Jadger is secretely hoping for. To avoid that outcome, if we hold a second vote, the votes cast in support should automatically carry over to any new vote, with the voters notified of this and given an opportunity to change their votes, if they wish. Balcer 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I said I would "close the vote" if there was no objection. There has been objection. There are two meanings of "close". One would be "closing, accepting the result" and "closing, invalidating the result". I think we should move towards closing the vote and accepting the result as a first step. Jagder will probably object but, if we leave open the possibility that he can propose tweaks to the compromise wording, then we should be able to unprotect the article and insert the compromise text proposed by Olessi and agreed to by others.

The alternative is to leave the article protected in its current version until Jagder can negotiate a different compromise text. IMO, this is not a good path for us to follow.

--Richard 20:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, the only reason they are objecting is because of what you said Richard, "I said I would "close the vote" if there was no objection. There has been objection. There are two meanings of "close". One would be "closing, accepting the result"" of course they are objecting, this is a sneaky way for them to win. No one new has voted on it because they know it is a sham and should be more level and worded unbiased. and if I were to attack the credibility of the support voters many of them would have to be discounted, but I am not doing that because the vote has been unfair. I am the only one who has objected to this vote because a number of us have agreed for me to speak on behalf of our viewpoint, in order to prevent Balcer and ProudPomeranian from attacking them again. BTW, it is not really ten votes for it, as Sciurinae's vote almost word for word is what I said, and it also says that this is only temporary.

What is the harm in having another vote? It will settle the dispute once and for all. I agree to adhere to whatever ruling comes of the second vote.

--Jadger 02:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it is not a "supermajority" or a consensus as Richard claims, as per wikipedia rules, 60% is consensus, one more person to vote against it and it is no longer a consensus, I would personally count Dr Dan as against it by his comments, but we may just wait and see.

--Jadger 02:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So, we have 11 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstain (even counting votes by Wikipedia:Single purpose accounts, which should count for less). 11 support votes out of 16 votes means 68.75% support. In my humble opinion that is concensus. We've had no votes cast in 2 days, so it appears no one else is interested in expressing their opinion. Can we bring this vote to some kind of a conclusion, based on this result? Balcer 01:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

we've had no votes cast in two days because they know this one is a sham vote. Not to mention 2 or 3 of those support votes can be described as conditional at best, some even are more like my viewpoint than supporting this version. Also, some votes even call for a subsequent vote, which I have given but you deleted multiple times. not to mention that the users that supported before any opposition could be raised may not know of the differing viewpoint. The outcome of this vote has never been clearly mentioned, so users don't even know what they are voting for, it has never been said that it is to vote to include it in the article, it looks more like "would you consider this better than the current version", many of the voters may not even realize it has been warped to mean a final judgement. you still have not answered me, why don't we have a vote that everyone can agree on to finish this? because this vote's basis has been called into question. You claim it is because I am a sore loser, but if I were a sore loser, you could hold another, more fair vote, and if/when I lose again then there can be no doubt which side has consensus.

to extend this wording into other votes, we could have a question such as "do you like people?" and when a majority support/say yes to it, then we can corrupt it on the article into saying, "a majority of people wikipedia users like cannibals" because cannibals/Nazis/insert evil person here are people, so a majority like them. that is what has been done here, people have voted on a ill-defined poll that can be corrupted into supporting something they may not, what is needed is a more clear and concise poll that gives both sides, not just one.

--Jadger 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

* --Richard 18:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC) On second thought, I'm Ok with Rahmel (now Rumia) also and in fact might even prefer Rahmel first instead of Rumia first so I think I'll just abstain. --Richard 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

  1. --Full support. Balcer 18:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sounds goood to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Good to see that Balcer is coming to his senses ;). --Thorsten1 19:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. It looks like a nice compromise to me. ProudPomeranian 21:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Of course, Space Cadet 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Seems a good compromise. Thanks, Olessi abakharev 22:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  7. Fine with me. //Halibutt 06:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support per this edit. --Lysytalk 07:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. --Pan Gerwazy 10:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Not perfect, but OK. The Rahmel or Rumia first question could be answered in a followup vote. -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  11. Though I'd prefer a different wording, I can live with the proposal. However, Stettiner is right in that the suggestion is not really in conformity with the Gdansk vote and furthermore I believe it could still be cut in length. When I come to think of it, I'd favour something like "Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel (Rumia), occupied Poland, in 1943". I assume the proposal voted on is more the provisional than the final decision and a different wording can still be decided, but, of course, not simply by revert warring. Sciurinæ 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I also like this version better which is why I changed my vote to abstain. My "winning formula" would include Rahmel first, Rumia second, in German-occupied Poland. --Richard 03:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how Sciurinae's support vote is anydifferent then my proposal in the comments section, and the reason I opposed it. I would also like to re-iterate that it was not in German-occupied Poland, but was annexed to Germany, hence my proposal: Steinbach was born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland) in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, in the part of pre-war Poland annexed by Nazi Germany in 1939. Her father, Wilhelm Karl Hermann, was a...--Jadger 01:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Jadger 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC) If it was part of Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, why call it Rumia then? if we are to use the polish language name, do you not think the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia would have to be in Polish also. there was no Rumia in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, try looking it up on a period map. I would not be adverse to Rahmel (Polish: Rumia).... also, it was not a part of German occupied Poland, it was not in the General Government. although, the only differences I see between this and the version I set forward is that a) it says Rumia first and b)it uses the word occupied instead of annexed.
  2. Schwartz und Weiss 22:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Let's just stick to the bare facts, like Jadger's suggesting.
  3. Wikipedia:NPOV & Wikipedia:Factual accuracy. There is no such thing as "Stalinist-occupied", "Republican-occupied", "Nazi-occupied", "Labour-occupied" etc. Rahmel was not part of occupied Poland. The city was called Rahmel in 1943. According to the Danzig/Gdansk vote, German name is to be used here, both because it was Rahmel in 1943 and because the person is clearly German. Let's stick to the facts instead of historical revisionism and irredentism. Stettiner 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    Registered on 13th September - 2 days before day this poll was started:[1]. Impressive knowledge of Gdansk vote and other issues gained in so little time, #12th edit labelled as 'rv POV pushing/vandalism'...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    since when was it wrong to edit as a anon for a long time before becoming a registered user? I did that, as I would guess you also did, as well as a majority of wiki users. if you want to attack credibility, I could do that also, but I would prefer if we keep more mature than ad-hominem attacks to win this. please, as Noob article states, "For example, Wikipedia has a firm policy of welcoming all new contributors whether or not their first edits are helpful to an encyclopedia" Please do not bite the noobs. that phrasing is not unique to the wiki, perhaps he/she edits on other websites also. Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers by newcomers here I mean he may of edited for a while as anon., as that is highly likely--Jadger 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dr. Dan 03:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC), explained in my comment below.
  5. I go along with Jadger. The article is objective and Erika Steinbach's place of birth is clearly identified. I don't see the problem. Norvo 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    Invited to vote here by User:Jadger. .Balcer 23:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    your point being? all people that may be interested may not have this on their watchlist. perhaps you could site an actual rule that says I can not tell people about a vote (as wikipedia:survey notification is not valid and is only kept for historical usage). Or else we would have to throw this whole vote out as Richard also invited people on other talk pages. Stop trying to attack and undermine those who don't support your viewpoint Balcer, please observe Wikipedia:Civility --Jadger 01:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    Check Wikipedia:Spam then for more up to date guidelines. Richard properly informed everyone that he posted the notice on various talk pages. Consider emulating him and doing the same in the future if you canvass for votes. Balcer 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Here is the version I set forward: Steinbach was born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland) in Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, in the part of pre-war Poland annexed by Nazi Germany in 1939. Her father, Wilhelm Karl Hermann, was a... if you don't like (now Rumia, Poland) it can be (Polish: Rumia)

--Jadger

That version seems acceptable to me as well. Olessi 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Perhaps Halibutt's suggestion of keeping the name in force during the historical period in question might be helpful. Examples like Stalingrad, Rahmel, Ciudad Trujillo, Leningrad, come to mind. In short if a person was born in Leningrad, we wouldn't say they were born in St. Petersburg because we didn't like Lenin. It seems Steinbach was born in Rahmel. As to the occupation aspect, it's unfortunate but that's what happened. During Poland's annexation and occupation of Vilnius, between 1920 and 1939, people were said to have been born in Wilno. Right? And most of the support votes would agree with me, I'm sure (at least to the second part of my statement). It seems to be a double standard, if Halibutt's suggestion is correct and agreed with, and not followed through. Dr. Dan 01:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I have said that before Dr. Dan, in the discussion above, but instead of refuting that point, Balcer changed it to his accusation that it was illegal, despite the fact that legality has nothing to do with it, as his quotation says, it was "officially incorporated into the German Reich", which is a law!!!
--Jadger 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

My full support for Jadger's proposal, although the colloquial name "Nazi Germany" should not be used. The country was called Germany. We don't use Bush-USA either. If the history of annexation shall be included, we also must include that the city was German prior to 1920.

I suggest: "Steinbach was born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland or Polish: Rumia) in Danzig-West Prussia, in a city which had in 1939 been reannexed to Germany after being Polish since 1920." Stettiner 14:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and murdering Jews was also all right in the face of German Law. Thank you but I don't think we should support Nazi laws. --Lysytalk 08:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


I think we should close this vote, and put the two versions (mine and Olessi's) up for a vote between them

--Jadger 01:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's too early to close. This vote has been open for only a few hours and this is much too short a time for everyone interested to express their opinion. Many of the active participants in this discussion have not yet voted (Stettiner, Halibutt etc). Give it a few days, and if a clear concensus does not emerge, we can run another vote with more restricted terms. Balcer 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

this vote was started without even a clear consensus that a vote was needed, in fact I had not heard of Olessi's offer before this vote started. Not to mention that this vote was started to gauge responses to it, hence Olessi stating: "Any opinions on using a variation of that?" and this section being titled Comments requested. All of the people that supported it voted before there was even another version represented, so it is hardly fair at all. when I say "hardly fair" I am using a common English language statement which really means that it's not fair at all. The purpose of this vote was to gauge opinion, that has been done, now lets hold a real vote This vote was not on whether to change the article to it, but rather if people like it, I set out an alternative, so we should vote on which one is better (and which one to use). Unless you have another form you would like to contribute Balcer, this should be closed and a new vote started wherein the two are offered rather than just support or approve one that has no competition.

--Jadger 02:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, 8 hours is not enough to gauge opinion. People have lives, you know, they cannot be monitoring Wikipedia 24 hours a day. Be patient. Balcer 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, why should they place their opinion on a vote that they know will be superseded by another vote anyways? It's rather pointless. people do have lives, well... I do, most other people do, but everytime I am on, you seem to be on. Perhaps before posting again, take a breather, go to Timmy Ho's and get yourself a large double-double, talk to the people there (conversation rather than arguing may be refreshing for you). Then, after getting that fresh air and clearing your head, come back and stop arguing with me over everything I write. As the proverb goes: it is better to keep your mouth shut and look like an idiot, then to open your mouth and prove it.

--Jadger 03:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, how pathetic. You see that you have no chance to win this vote so you call for a new one. Will we have to vote time after time until your version is chosen? So far against the proposition are only two votes: yours and one by an inactive account which has been luckily reactivated just in time to vote on a page it never before touched (and has been in meantime accused of being someone's sockpuppet by getting into a revert war on Comenius). How funny. Anyway, it was obvious since the momemt the article got protected that we have to vote. Someone proposed a compromise version. So the vote starts. So far, most involved editors clearly prefer the proposed version. Everything is being been done according to the book. Get over it. ProudPomeranian 05:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

To make it even more strange, the only other user to vote against - User:Schwartz und Weiss - is being accused of being a sock puppet of User:71.137.207.147 which is a IP number registered in... Canada where you live according to your page. The meaning of Schwartz und Weiss is obviously black and white - the historical flag of East Prussia and you have... "Frederick the Great, the greatest man ever" on your Userpage. Both Schwartz und Weiss and 71.137.207.147 take part in a revert war on.. the borders of Prussia. All three accounts are never used when it's night in Ontario (4:00-12:00 GMT) and only very rarely in the mornings (12:00-16:00 GMT). How strange. What an astounding coincidence: the only three defenders of Prussia tradition all editing from east coast Canada??? ProudPomeranian 06:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What a strange coincidence that someone who's recently defined Copernicus as Polish also seems to come from there... Sciurinæ 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Just check the IP and stop your childish bird-brained speculations and accusations. BTW, what time is it in Ontario, now? Can you calculate it for me, smart ass? Schwartz und Weiss 07:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Here you are [2]. And calling people names means breaking WP:NPA. ProudPomeranian 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You still did not answer my question about time in Ontario - probably because it contradicts your entire silly theory: "never used when it's night in Ontario (4:00-12:00 GMT)". And smart-ass is not a name but an attitude, genius. Schwartz und Weiss 15:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, can we assume good faith? Let's not get distracted by the allegations of sock puppeteering.
Did I accuse anyone? I simply listed some strange coincidences. We should assume good faith but we should be also wary. Otherwise what would be the purpose of the procedures against sock puppets? ProudPomeranian 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether he/she is a sockpuppet, User:Schwartz und Weiss's vote must carry less weight simply because the scale of his/her contribution to Wikipedia has not been awe-inspiring to say the least. Edit Count shows that user made only 130 edits for over 2 years that his/her account existed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, practically all of those edits appear to be counterproductive revert wars over inserting German names into various articles. The person closing the vote should take this into consideration. Balcer 22:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I will comment that I have advertised this vote on Talk:Gdansk,Talk:Rumia,Talk:Federation of Expellees,Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II and Talk:Historical Eastern Germany. I think even Jadger will agree that the pages that I have advertised on will cover most Wikipedians that have an interest in this question. If there are other pages, then please advertise this vote on those pages also. Let's wait a few days to see who else comes to vote. --Richard 07:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been also advertised at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. --Lysytalk 07:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you people prefer using Warschau and Hitlerstrasse as well ? --Lysytalk 07:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in voting on historical facts when the Polish nationalists mobilize the entire Polish Wikipedia. I don't think Poles should decide the facts in a biography of a German politician!!! Stettiner 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, certain Wikipedia articles should be Nur für Deutsche? Balcer 15:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedia is in some way Nur für Deutsche. Now the German one is not enough, more and more English articles contain radical German views. Xx236 12:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What's "Nur für Deutsche" about the German Wikipedia? And where is the invasion? How many people here vote for "was born in Rahmel, then re-liberated Germany, now Polish-occupied" or anything like that? I see no enemy giants, just windmills, if you know what I mean. Sciurinæ 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see a troll, if you know what I mean. Dr. Dan 02:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

German occupation of Rumia region was an integral project, which included:

  • arrestations (sending to Stutthof camp)
  • extermination (Piaśnica)
  • expulsion
  • changing names of places
  • German law, including war tribunals
  • and many others.

You vote that point "changing names of places" was O.K.. Will you vote the other options too? Xx236 13:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactored from intro to section

How about "Lech Walesa led the Solidarity movement in in Danzig (Polish Gdansk), part of Stalinist-occupied Germany"? Or perhaps Rahmel was Pilsudski-occupied Germany in 1930? Stettiner 14:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the question starts with agreeing that it should be called what it was called when she was born. Thus, someone might have been born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) or Stalingrad (now Volgograd).
As for the "Stalinist-occupied Germany", I think we have to look for NPOV here. Even before the breakup of the Soviet Union, few people thought of Gdansk as Stalinist or Soviet occupied Germany. Some may have thought of it as Soviet-dominated Poland but, I believe, Gdansk transferred to Poland legally and there is little international dispute about it. Using the same yardstick, Rahmel/Rumia should be considered German-occupied Poland because the German invasion of Poland is generally considered to have been illegal aggression.
Claiming that annexation was "legal under German law of the time" is an illegitimate argument. In these matters, we should only consider international law.

--Richard 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Special apartheid rules for Germany cannot be tolerated. The Polish annexations of German territory was as illegal as German annexation, or vice versa. Breslau was officially part of Germany as Polish-occupied Germany until 1991. So if we accept Polish POV in this article, we must accept German POV in every single article about persons born in or living in the annexed territories from 1945 to 1991. Stettiner 19:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The new border was recognised by East Germany in 1950 and by West Germany in the 1970 Treaty of Warsaw (1970). After German reunification, these previous agreements were reconfirmed in 1990. But this was just what Germany thought of this, and Germany does not equal world opinion. The rest of the world has not had any problems with Poland's postwar borders since the Potsdam Agreement. Balcer 19:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
One's own "confirmation", i.e. the confirmation of the illegal Soviet puppet regime, doesn't count, and obviously the treaties of a defunct state are null and void. The legitimate government of Germany didn't accept illegal annexation until 1990, and it was not accepted by parliament until 1991. The 1970 treaty recognized borders as temporary "factual", not legal. Germany reserved the right to hold the question open. The opinion of South Africa, or the population of Mars, on this issue is really irrelevant. This is a conflict with two parts and two opinions, and nothing more. Stettiner 20:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to believe that in 1945-1991 there was no legitimate German government, you have a right to that personal opinion. But that is not the mainstream view, which accepted East and West Germany as legitimate members of the international community, that issued binding laws, had legal passports, competed in the Olympics etc etc. The international agreements into which they entered were binding. Germany scrambled to reconfirm those agreements the moment it reunified. Balcer 20:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That is your perception that 1945-1991 there was no legitimate German government. You have a right to that personal opinion. But that is not the mainstream view. Among democratic nations (to which your totalitarian People's Republic did of course not belong) the democratically elected government of the Federal Republic of Germany was accepted as the sole legitimate German government. Only Stalinists claimed that those appointed by Stalin and his successors to dictate the Soviet Zone constituted a legitimate German government. The Stalinist treaties were in no way binding for the legitimate German government. Stettiner 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Even West Germany eventually accepted East Germany as an equal partner, in the Basic Treaty (1972). Other countries had diplomatic relations with East Germany (US since 1974). What kind of parallel, fantasy universe do you think you are living in? Balcer 20:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That temporary policy was effectively reverted from 1990 onwards. The purpose of the treaty was to allow citizens of democratic Germany to travel in the Soviet occupied zone. It is fine to see that you agree that in 1950 (Treaty of Zgorzelec), the entire democratic world considered the government of the Federal Republic of Germany to be the only legitimate German government, and thus the Stalinist treaty null and void. Even if countries later recognized the GDR as a state, like Germany did, it did not mean they considered it a representative of the German government, but rather as a separate regime. What kind of parallel, fantasy universe do you think you are living in? Stettiner 21:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I have no great love for East German communists, but the 1950 treaty did de facto establish the border, given that Poland did not share a border with West Germany. True, East Germany was not recognised at the time by many Western countries, but eventually it was. West Germany, which you think is the legitimate representative of Germany, recognised that border in 1970. Yes, I know they "reserved" some rights pending final reunification, but please explain to me how that "reservation" automatically means that Poland occupied German territories? To prove this you would have to produce official statements of German government officials made after 1970 which state that Poland occupied German territory. Obviously, I do not think you will find any. Balcer 21:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Under international law, annexation is not legal. So the Polish annexations were illegal. Nevertheless, Wikipedia does not seem to care. Neither does Wikipedia care about international law when it comes to, say, Israel. So Wikipedia is following the facts on the ground, and there should be no exception for Germans. Stettiner 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Under international law, annexation is not legal - ditto. Which means that the 1939 annexation of Rumia was not legal either. Quid erat demostrandum. //Halibutt 13:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

but then in that case Halibutt, the 1939 annexation was not annexation but a re-establishment of German control over its own territory (Rahmel), as you have just agreed with stettiner that annexation in 1919 was illegal, although carried out under the guise of the league of nations. I of course am not referring to the extra land taken but the land pre 1919 in Germany, which included Rahmel. As I stated before, If one takes there own property back from a thief, its not stealing.

--Jadger 03:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If we followed the rule, the annexations of 1790's were not legal either. Dream on, Jadger. Or take your time to ask Irpen about the idea of annexation through treaty, as he seems to be a specialist on the matter. //Halibutt 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No comments. --Irpen 00:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

But why not? This is the case I agree with your views and I guess your input could really be beneficial here. //Halibutt 01:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

the annexations of 1790 were perfectly legal Halibutt, and they were internationally accepted. 1790 is before the time of ethnic nation states, where peoples tried to create their own free united nations, that came after Napoleon, not before him. As such, it is more like inheriting lands than a forceful takeover, as it had been agreed by Russia, Prussia and Austria (and since Poland was a puppet, Poland also agreed to it). Also, I would like for you to point out what law was broken in International law in the 1790s.

--Jadger 02:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

If the annexation of 1790 were legal, by the same logic so were annexation in 1918. The same logic cannot however be applied for annexation in 1939, since they were not internationally recognised. Szopen 10:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I honourably disagree with you Szopen, as Germany, Hungary, Romania, Italy, Japan, Slovakia, Lithuania, USSR, etc. etc. all recognized that Poland no longer existed/was annexed and occupied in 1939. If that is not international recognition I don't know what is, as that perfectly fits the description of International Recognition. just because her enemies did not admit it doesn't mean it wasn't internationally recognized, The enemies of Germany aren't the only people with a valid viewpoint simply because they won the war eventually. Like how in medieval times rivals for a throne didn't recognize each other's rights to it, and their supporters/detractors didn't either.

--Jadger 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erika Steinbach was born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland)

On Rumia Discussion right on top you can find the records for inhabitants of Rahmel, Westprussia from the 1600's until 1940 Talk:Rumia. Those original church records are filmed by the LDS since 1920. Here is another look at it http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Library/fhlcatalog/printing/titledetailsprint.asp?titleno=103047 Poles and Czechs took all birth, marriage , death certificates from the people they expelled, when they (the Communists under Soviet Union) conquered Germany. Even the people that managed to stay in their homeland, which became Communist Poland etc were not allowed to keep their records and got Polish ones instead. It was all part of the Communist plan to conquer and take over eastern Germany as far as they could get away with and then claim it all as 'original Polish' or 'Recovered Polish Territory' etc. What they did not count on, that there are originals records in the churches, which had been filmed by the LDS from Utah, starting by the way after 1920, that is the time, when these territories were 'taken' from Germany and 'given' to Poland by Treaty of Versailles, which by the way was not signed by the USA.

By the way, thank you Schwarz und Weiss, for trying to put a little bit of sense into this 'Friendly' Neighbor at the Comenius article. Labbas 16 Sep 2006

Balcer, I should probably go to your talk page with this, but I think Labbas's link to these records are rather telling, don't you? Dr. Dan 23:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What is so telling about it, pray tell? The page given does not actually list any names, so it does not give any indication what percentage of Rumia's population had which ethnicity. It only indicates that the official language used in Rumia was German, which is of course not surprising. Incidentally, the anon user's theory about Poland hiding/destroying the records is belied by the fact that the first (and hence presumably most important) sources for them are described as: Mikrofilme aufgenommen von Manuskripten im Archiwum Państwowym Gdańsk, Warszawa ...
But this is all beside the point, as Rumia was a small, insignificant village until flooded by thousands of Poles settling there to work in newly-built Gdynia in the 1930s. In 1939, when it was occupied by Germany, it was a nascent town with majority Polish population. Balcer 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Was this still the case when Steinbach was born? You know the expression what a difference a day makes? Wroclaw was not an insignificant village, yet it too was flooded by Poles after WWII. And I would not say that a Polish child born there after, say 1946 (or even 1945), was born in Breslau. Would you? Dr. Dan 00:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Who knows? As you well know, the Germans expelled a large number of Poles from the Reichsgaus after 1939 (though not all by any means). Incidentally, it is also worth mentioning that the Germans who complain so much about expulsions after 1945 started the trend themselves by expelling Poles from areas annexed to Germany after 1939. Anyway, this discussion is not going anywhere. Names of cities are not determined by their ethnic composition. It is not our job to play historians or international lawyers, fun though it might be. We must find reliable sources, cite them, and incorporate what they say into Wikipedia. For one source, check this Google print link Balcer 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally, the whole point of the discussion is not whether to use the name Rahmel or not (both proposals use both names), but about whether to refer to Rumia as "under German occupation". Eminent historical works use that formulation, and so should we. Balcer 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You know, Balcer makes a very good point here. We should use formulations that can be found in reliable sources. --Richard 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Polish nationalists want to have special rules for Germany. No wonder Polish plait is Poland's only contribution to European culture. Stettiner 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Careful, Stettiner, a while back another user got into a serious controversy for making almost exactly this comment (see [3]).Balcer 01:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I checked it and found (only) 1 date after 1903: marriages until 1940. Filmed in the 20s? Note that if they were filmed in the 1920s, they or some of them were filmed at ... Gdansk. I beg your pardon? I am sorry, I have grave doubts about your version of how the LDS got them. Poles hiding, destroying? Some of these were filmed after 1945. In Gdansk. Now, all that these records prove is that the Roman Catholic Church at Rumia/Rahmel used German until 1903. Perhaps, just perhaps, because German State law compelled them to? Note that there was a Mormon village in East Prussia from the 1920s (in Zełwągi)- if they were involved, that would be one more reason why all the headings are in German.--Pan Gerwazy 01:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Now we need to discredit the Mormons? I for one, have no problem with Mormons, and highly appreciate their contributions to genealogy and their other positive contributions to society. Dr. Dan 20:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not trying to discredit Mormons. I wrote that Labbas' version of how these archives got filmed cannot be correct (one file, yes, one file only from 1940 plus the mention "Gdansk" - all this points to at least part of it having been filmed after 1945). The Mormons of Selbongen/Nikolaiken spoke German and Masurian only, they could write only in German and they would not have been familiar with Kashubian or a Polish dialect spoken in Rumia. Which would explain why they put the headings in German. In view of the fact that these were official documents, that the German state (certainly before 1903) required such documents to be in German, the mention on this internet page that some of the text is in Polish is interesting. Like anything in Welsh in baptismal records of 19th century Wales would be interesting. Nothing anti-Mormon here. --Pan Gerwazy 07:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate description

Describing an organisation representing victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing as "controversial" as main descrition in an unrelated article is inappropriate. I think its time to get rid of the Stalinist apologist vandals, who also abuse admin powers to protect their historical revisionism and Stalinist apologism. Obviously, this article needs to be protected against Polish nationalist POV pushing by non-nationalists and native speakers (this is the English, not Polish, Wikipedia). Stalin, go home! Stettiner 00:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it must be that Deutsche Welle is run by Polish Stalinists, since they consider the activities of Federation of Expellees controversial (see [4]). Sorry, I tried hard to converse with you, but with your ethnic slurs and accusations of Stalinism you have crossed the line. Feeding time is over. Balcer 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Balcer is right of course, but I would like to point out that if they are not controversial, they do have the knack to choose controversial leaders: [5]. And perhaps, as a "non-nationalist", I should finally find the time to translate this article into English.--Pan Gerwazy 01:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a small problem that the organisation representing victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing had a number of Nazi Founding Fathers, even Erika Steinbach admitted this. There is another small problem, that the organisation didn't represent victims of German genocide and ethnic cleansing 1933-1944.

I have found names of historians, who created the image of Expulsion:

  • Theodor Schieder
  • Werner Conze
  • Albert Brackmann

Xx236 12:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jadger proposal

I have restored Jadger proposal for voting to the subpage Talk:Erika Steinbach/Jadger proposal. Please discuss this proposal there. We already have one poll active just now, so we probably do not want to confuse the participants. I would suggest to use Judger's proposal if the poll would not yield convincing results abakharev 05:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Starting a new poll while the first one was open less than 24 hours, without any support from other users for this plan, is a very bad idea. Still, I thank Alex for containing the chaos and spinning the new vote to a separate section for now. Balcer 05:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you abakharev, the reason for my proposal is really simple. the current vote had only one side represented, and since I posted my objections, people have removed their support of it or voted against it (no one has since voted for it), showing that it was not really a truly fair vote. my vote on the other hand, contains both versions that were seen as being suitable contestants.
As abakharev stated, he restored my proposal because Balcer kept removing it in order to push his POV, if the side he was on is as strong as he claims, then he would have no problem with another vote that would reinforce his opinion, but alas he knows the current one is worded to support only one way, without intentionally belittling its opposition. also, the current vote has become "lost" now, so convoluted with personal attacks, accusations in order to defame one another's characters, etc. etc. that it no longer makes much sense and is extremely polluted. And if you will notice, it has been longer than 24 hours as Balcer claims it has been almost 48 hours, and nearly 24 hours since anyone voted on it, in fact, just as many votes have been removed in the last 24 hours as have been added.
The original vote, although no harm was meant by Olessi I'm sure, reminds me of the last election for Saddam Hussein. There were no other real choices besides other Ba'ath party members who did not really want to run against him, in this case there was no opposition until I posted it, which was after most of the support votes had been cast. How does one truly make a good choice when one only knows one side of the story?
For the record, I had nothing to do with the establishment of a poll. I saw a public invitation for assistance at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I then suggested phrasing and openly asked for discussion about it. A poll was created by others afterward, and was never my intention. Olessi 19:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I incorrectly suggested to Jadger that Olessi started the poll. My mistake. It was User:Richardshusr who actually launched the poll, in this diff. It is only Olessi's suggestion which is being voted on. Sorry for any confusion. The text itself did not contain any mention of who launched the poll, but the message just above it carried Olessi's signature, hence my error.


P.S. by "contain the chaos", Balcer means that he is trying to put the best spin on being warned by admin to stop removing other user's edits. [[6]]
--Jadger 05:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed Jadger's new, unilateral vote proposal twice, while I attempted to talk him out of adopting this course on his talk page. Starting a new poll on one's own whimsy, and effectively throwing out the votes of the people who already voted, is simply bad manners. It also would introduce further confusion into this already rather chaotic discussion. Still, putting the new proposal into a separate section is a way to keep a semblance of organisation to these proceedings. I thank Alex for suggesting that idea.
As for being afraid of this or that, the simplest interpretation, to me at least, is that it is Jadger who is afraid of losing the current vote, and is attempting to scuttle it. But I leave everyone to make their own judgement on that. Balcer 05:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, your attempts to draw me into a flaming war have failed Balcer(Do not feed the trolls), you will not drag me through the mud with you. I will take the moral high road thank you very much. As for on my own "whimsy" (very poor grammar BTW), I have told you on your talk page (if you have not removed it) that many people supported it, and I named them. You scuttled the current vote a long time ago Balcer, you didn't need any help from me.

--Jadger 06:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Free grammar lesson: [7], [8]]. Balcer 06:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

what you mean to say is "at his own whim" not "on his own whimsy" If you will notice, the second link you provided uses the word in another context then you do, and your first one if you look up "whim" proves my point perfectly.

--Jadger 06:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion shouldn't be continued on personal pages as ad-personam attacks. Thank you for your future cooperation. Xx236 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, first of all it is called ad-hominem, and second, I never did that, as first of all there would have to be a discussion taking place, which I clearly stated could not happen while you continue to troll and be nonsensical. I stated you are a "conversation-stopper" as Richard Rorty had defined it, perhaps you should read the essay, it really is an excellent read and could open your eyes considerably. If it was a personal attack or ad-hominem, report me, but since it wasn't, you simply claim it was in order to slander my reputation. I never attacked you, I simply asked you to not waste space on an already extensive talk page by stating nonsensical, unverifiable allegations (not to mention downright falsifications).

--Jadger 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Three traditionally identified varieties are ad hominem abusive or ad personam, ad hominem circumstantial, and ad hominem tu quoque. Ad hominem Xx236 07:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jadger's actions

I'm sorry, I've said before that I respect Jadger and I assumed his good faith but while we are discussing here, he is hand-picking and recruiting for voting only the editors who he believes would support his POV. Such behaviour neither helps building the consensus nor does it lead to reflecting the NPOV view of the community on the matter. Should others behave in a similar way ? This is clear water POV pushing and it is unacceptable. --Lysytalk 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussion of Rahmel/Rumia (and other tangentially related stuff) here from Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II

This text was removed by User:Kusma from Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II as "off-topic". It is a bit "off-topic". A good chunk of it is relevant to the Rumia/Rahmel debate so I moved it here. --Richard 15:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Rahmel is the german name of her birthtown and Rumia is the polish one. This territory was german occupied but also a part of the former german settled western prussia.

look there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.185.254.24 (talk • contribs)

Thanks but if this were so easily settled, we wouldn't have had an edit war and there would have been no need for protection. Please visit the Talk Page and express your opinion there. --Richard 05:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It is really settled that easily, but on wikipedia sometimes you have to deal with nonsensical people intent on pushing a nationalistic POV, including claiming that all lands in Poland have always been Polish and no one else has ever lived there rightfully.

--Jadger 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on re-reading User:84.185.254.24's text, I agree that this is pretty close to the mark. I think the issue is that Rahmel WAS the German name of the birthplace at the time of her birth but that name is (I'm guessing here) no longer in use and the current name used is the Polish one Rumia. The only question left is whether it is import ant to mention that Rahmel used to be part of German-settled western Prussia. This leads to two alternatives:
a) born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland) in German-occupied Poland
b) born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland) in German-occupied Poland which was once part of German-settled western Prussia.
I would vote for (a) as (b) seems too clunky to be workable and suggests a bit of German POV pushing. I would argue for alluding the fact that it was German-occupied and the fact that it had previously been part of Poland and then leave the rest of history out of it since the article is about Erika Steinbach and NOT about the history of West Prussia.
--Richard 16:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

why not just born in Rahmel (now Rumia, Poland)? it leaves the whole controversy over the wording out of it, and they can then look it up on the Rumia article. also, you say "I would argue for alluding the fact that it was German-occupied and the fact that it had previously been part of Poland", well it a part of Germany before that, so that point is moot. We can go back forever and find that the ancestors of the Basque people owned it first, the point should be left out of this particular sentence, it can be expanded on/clarified in the rest of the article. but please, let's move this discussion to our userpages in order not to confuse any new readers.

--Jadger 00:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason to use the name Rahmel is the Nazi annexation of 1939, not accepted by democratic states. If you don't like Versaille, you are free to do it at home, with your friends, but not here. Germany waged a world war killing tens of millions because the Germans hated Versailles. If someone wants to experiment with Versilles, let he/she do it in an old mine, far from Poland. Xx236 11:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC) Xx236 11:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, you can't be serious, STOP TWISTING MY WORDS, Germany waged a world war killing tens of millions because the Germans hated Versailles, Germany isn't the only country to wage this war, Britain waged war, Poland waged war, USA waged war, they all waged this war that killed tens of millions, I would like to point you to Balcer and Halibutt's statements on another talk page wherein they state that Poland made sure that they dragged the rest of the world into war with Germany. if you read here, they clearly state that Poland dragged the rest of Europe into the war against Germany, now who is worse, Germany for starting an isolated war to regain it lost territory, or Poland for making it a world war (this all according to Balcer and Halibutt). Please cite a credible source that can back up your allegations, as per wikipedia:verifiability.

--Jadger 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazi propaganda claimed, that the invasion of September 1st 1939 was caused by Poles. Are the Nazis returning? Xx236 06:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, the difference is that the war was started by Germany. Yes, they wanted to regain territories lost in Versailles, but this were territories which were German only because they were conquered. I am not sure whether you are trying to use here (I'm affraid quite typical) Kali logic:

"German wanted to regain territories it was good, Poland regained earlier its territories it was bad". Of course Germany starting a war is much worse than Poland calling for help. It's realy hard to see it otherwise. If a man ravishes a woman, you can't blame her to call for police. Szopen 10:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, that doesn't dignify a response Xx236, as with most of your comments. Szopen, I do not agree with what I was saying above, I was simply pointing to the talk page wherein Xx236's friends Balcer and Halibutt had said it, if we are to assume that what they say is true (as they claim) then what I said above follows from that.
"If a man ravishes a woman, you can't blame her to call for police." right, the man who did the ravaging was the triple entente/Versailles, the woman being Germany. But instead of calling "the Police" (League of Nations) she decided to stick up for herself in 1939 (and go over the line and exact revenge). If we are to use metaphors, by the reasoning above, it is not theft if you hand valuables to the thief when he has a gun to your head, as you handed the valuables to him, implying acceptance/approval. it wasnt stolen, you gave it to him The gun being in this case Versailles/triple entente military and valuables being German land. Of course this is wrong, I was simply showing your point in another metaphor.
there is a difference between Poland "regaining" territory in 1919 than Germany doing it in 1939. Because Poland lost that land before the modern version of nation states being ethnically minded was developed (that is Germany being a nation of you guessed it: Germans), Royal Prussia was a Polish fief, but populated by Germans as well as Poles. By 1919 it was predominantly German populated. see Polish Corridor, it was not given to poland because it was previously polish, but because it would weaken Germany and provide poland with a "outlet to the sea"
--Jadger 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Jadger, the problem with your reasoning is that yes, Polish Corridor had POLISH majority (Germans were about 42% in POmerania, but as you know before 1939 POlish corridor was sometimes used to refer all the lands lost by Germany in 1919, of which Posen had eevn greater Polish majority). Royal Prussia was not Polish fief, as you try to imply, but integral part of Polish crown (though, especially before UoL, with large authonomy). As for the other things, if you lost a war you have started (after all, it were Germans who declared war on France and Russia in WWI) you cannot complain of the consequences; and even more, if you earlier dictated even worse peace to countries you have defeated.
After all, on what basis Germans could claim that Versailles was unjust, if they earlier dictated even worse peace of Brest-Litovsk or Treaty of Bucharest? This is what literally p* me off whenever I am talking with the Germans - it seems many Germans has this "Kali mentality" - if we did something, well, you know, the war and all, but if someone would do the very same thing to us this is OUTRAGEOUS! Szopen 15:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: BTW, I should clarify comments above: I had in mind "some" Germans, not large group, but a subset of editors and usenet users large enough to be notified. My intention was not to offend valuable editors or any kind of general ethnic slur - if someone however felt offended by the sentence above, please accept my apologies. Szopen 16:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

what I meant by my previos comment wherein i stated other nations waged war besides Germany, I was simply showing that XX236's claim that Germany was responsible for everydeath during WWII is incorrect.

--Jadger 19:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jadger, you keep fighting against:

  • It's totally unimportant who is my friend. If you check, you will find my disputes with many Polish contributors.

BTW, it's interesting that you ask anti-Polish non-Germans to help you. You want a nationalistic war. The idea of Wikipedia was liberal, but as many such ideas radicals use Wiki to spread anti-liberal Nazi and Communist ideas.

  • I have written:

The only reason to use the name Rahmel is the Nazi annexation of 1939, not accepted by democratic states. If you don't like Versaille, you are free to do it at home, with your friends, but not here. Germany waged a world war killing tens of millions because the Germans hated Versailles. If someone wants to experiment with Versilles, let he/she do it in an old mine, far from Poland. Which of my words aren't true? Versailles wan't a perfect solution, but it was respected by the majority of democratic states. Germany succeeded in removing many limitations till 1939. It was German decision to wage the war in September 1939, killing tens of millions.

If I were you I would stop this discussion. There were tens of thousands of civilian victims in the "Corridor" in Piaśnica, Stutthof camp and other places and many of those victims were local people. Germans proved they were inviders. I bet there are not enough articles about Nazi crimes here. If you wage a Wiki war, you will mobilize some Poles to write such articles. Xx236 14:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Very sad. This discussion seems to be full of German and Polish national egos. Rumia/Rahmel has often changed their ruling parties. Many people did not even know anymore whether they are German or Polish, many were mixed. This is a point totally neglected here. One side shouts: Rumia/Rahmel has been German all along; the other one shouts: Germans are all Nazis and therefore all history has to be reduced to the evil things "the" Germans did. Both is completely one sided. I think this is the core of the issue here. Rumia is PRESENT; Rumia and Rahmel are HISTORY, and German presence there was not only the years of Nazi occupation. And this history is also CONNECTED to people like Erika Steinbach, because she was not born in present Polish Rumia, but in the past when both the presence of Rumia and Rahmel were present as a Slavo-Germanic mixed area. Of course this is not convenient for nationalists from either the German or Polish side, but it's the truth.

[edit] World War I

Why is it important to mention that Rumia/Rahmel had been part of Germany before the first World War. How is this relevant to the fact that Erika Steinbach was born there ? --Lysytalk 19:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, This strikes me as a disingenuous question. That is, it would seem that you know the answer and are just asking in a rhetorical way. But perhaps you are unaware of the dispute that has been running in this article for at least 4-5 months so excuse me if I lay out the argument in very simple steps.
Please note that I really don't care about this issue. I just want it to be dealt with in an NPOV way so that we can avoid edit wars. However, the chain of logic goes something like this:
1) Some people dispute the legitimacy of Erika Steinbach claiming to be an expellee because she was born of German parents in Rumia (by accident due to her father's posting there as part of the Luftwaffe) rather than being a descendant of people who had lived there for many generations.
2) Now that we have a need to explain where she was born, we therefore need to provide the name of the town where she was born. Is it Rumia or Rahmel? Or Rumia (formerly Rahmel)? Or Rahmel (now Rumia)?
3) To summarize the long edit war and debate over the name of the town, it comes down to this...
3a) The town is currently named Rumia
3b) It was called Rahmel during the German occupation of Polish lands which were formerly German before Versailles
3c) It was called Rumia between Versailles and the German invasion of Poland in 1939
3d) It was called Rahmel before Versailles
3e) I don't know if it was ever called Rumia at a time before Versailles. I suspect it might have been.
I personally think this is a stupid dispute to have in this particular article. It would be more understandable if the dispute were being conducted in the Rumia article. Here, however, it seems to me to be a real sideshow to the main topic of discussing Steinbach's life.
--Richard 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
As stupid as it is (and I agree on this of course), the issue of the expellees does not have much to do with the pre-WW1 time. We should not be writing the history of Rumia/Rahmel in Erika Steinbach article. What can be (vaguely) relevant is that it was renamed to Rahmel during the Nazi occupation 1939-1945, and the point of the lengthy dispute has been whether the Nazi occupation name should be recognized or not. But there's no need to further justify this with the history of the Partitions of Poland. I'm rather surprised that you find it acceptable. --Lysytalk 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that I have not asked if Rumia or Rahmel is the "better" name for the town during WW2. But to me the sole purpose of mentioning the pre-WW1 name is to suggest that it should belong to Germany. Otherwise why do we need this mentioned there in the first place ? I think this should go. --Lysytalk 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, of course Rumia is part of Poland now, noone denies this. But Steinbach wasn't born now, she was born then. Thus, it is very relevant to mention that Rumia/Rahmel has been part of Poland and Germany at various times. This is important context. It is important to understand the character of the area, and also is relevant to the mindset of people who used to live there when Steinbach lived there. Many of the inhabitants did not even know whether they are German or Polish, or both. It is clear that this may annoy both German and Polish nationalists. But it is the truth and there is nothing wrong with it. This point is very relevant to understand the people there at the time, including Erika Steinbach. Another inconvenient point is that there was also German expellees after WW1 and before that was the division of Poland, thus neither the ideas that Rumia/Rahmel had "always" been German or had "always" been Polish are correct. Thus, to mention only Rumia suggests that the area had always been Polish. To only mention Rahmel insinuates the idea it had always been German. Both is historically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.222.8 (talk • contribs)
No, Steinbach was not born "then" as you put it. She was not born before WW1. How about mentioning that it was not German before the partitions of Poland then ? This is insane. All this discussion belongs maybe to Rumia, or rather to History of Germany and History of Poland, but the history of Rumia before World War I or before the Partitions of Poland is not relevant to this article on Erika Steinbach. --Lysytalk 19:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Steinbach was born in 1943, when the place was called Rahmel. But in order to be fair, I suggest both mentioning Rumia and Rahmel. It's not insane at all. If you insist it should be the name when Steinbach was born, then it is Rahmel. But I insist both Rumia and Rahmel should be mentioned. Your argument is to call it only Rumia, no matter when Steinbach was born or whatever the historical context. I don't agree, because the reader who is not familiar with history will assume it never had any German ties but had been Polish for centuries and then the "bad Germans" came out of the blue. And this is basically your point here. But my point is it's Rumia today and it will stay Rumia forever, but in order to be accurate in 1943 and the population who lived there back then I suggest we call it Rumia and Rahmel in this context.
Actually, the "bad" Germans came out of the blue. While other "good" Germans may have lived in Rumia/Rahmel for many years before, Steinbach's parents came there with the Nazi invasion. How is the pre-WW1 story relevant to this ? Did they come there to collect their belongings or what ? --Lysytalk 00:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Now this is a misrepresentation, noone was talking about anyone "collecting their belongings". As I mentioned before, when Steinbach was born it was called Rahmel. However, to call it only Rahmel I find unfair, the same for calling it only Rumia. It both brings across a wrong picture, since this area needed to endure a lot of changes within a relatively short time. Moreover, the population even after WW1 was insecure about their identity. And as I mentioned before, now it is Rumia and a completely different context, but Steinbach was born in 1943.
I'm sorry for the sarcasm and the rhetorical question. Of course they did not come to "collect their belongings". They came with the Nazi occupation forces. Now, that the town has been named "Rahmel" in 1939-1945 is purely the Nazi perspective, as the annexation of the town to German has been not recognized internationally. Since the Nazis occupied Poland, they could have claimed whatever names including Litzmannstadt and such, but this would not make these names any more official. It would be Rahmel of course if we spoke about say 1914, but certainly not 1943. This has been discussed zillion of times here already. What I asked however was about the purpose of including pre-WW1 history of Rahmel in this particular article, as neither Steinbach nor her family have any pre-WW1 history in Rahmel. --Lysytalk 06:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh God. This page was protected for over a week because of the unending edit war that was going on over this issue. I thought we had gotten the issue put to bed and along comes Lysy with no doubt pure and innocent motives but nonetheless winds up reopening the wound.

Lysy, please do us a favor and read the admittedly long and seemingly interminable debate on this Talk Page over this issue. I can't figure out which is more insane - mentioning pre-WWI in an article about a woman born in 1943 or spending literally thousands if not tens of thousands of words debating Rumia/Rahmel. I wish I had a penny for every keystroke wasted on this debate.

--Richard 07:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're attributing me somebody else's intentions. All I asked above was why was it important to mention that Rumia/Rahmel had been part of Germany before the first World War. I did not revert. I did not advocate Rumia vs Rahmel or the other way round. Why are you saying that I'm restarting this discussion, while my issue is obviously with the other (WW1) sentence. In fact, as I reread the thread, it is obvious that it is you and the other anonymous editor that are reviving the naming debate instead of focusing on what I asked about. I have bolded parts of the discussion to show you how you're twisting my words. I've been only asking a simple question about the WW1 relevance, and you (Richard + 80.128.222.8) are trying to drift it away to the Rumia/Rahmel naming debate again. And now you are trying to accuse me of doing what actually you attempted yourself ? --Lysytalk 09:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the issue. As mentioned I think Rumia and Rahmel should be mentioned in order to explain the character of the birthplace of Steinbach. I don't know why this is such a big problem. The article mentions both Rumia, Rahmel, the Nazi occupation and pre-WW1. I think this is very accurate.
But oh, you already deleted everything and changed it to your version. Great Lysy... Why do you even pretend to be objective?
No, I have not deleted it. I also do not pretend to be objective. I'm certainly not, but I'm trying to. Back to our petty issue here, if you insist that pre-WW1 history of Rahmel should be mentioned, I would insist that earlier history is equally relevant. Sill, I'm sure the article is not a place for such advocacy and I only do not understand why can't you see that :-( --Lysytalk 17:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I mean the point is, you and I maybe know more about histroy. But most people don't, so they will simply assume it has either always been a Polish or always a German town, when they read the article. I don't really have the strength and time to check this site all the time to see what is put on or off. I suggest to mention it all.
In general terms, I am aware there are many prejudiced ideas of Steinbach flurring around and I don't support witch hunts. I am not a fan of her, but I also don't think she is as bad as she is portrayed at all. Besides, she doesn't decide anything alone and is accompanied by other reputable and pragmatic people, or is Imre Kertesz a fanatic? As a matter of fact this extremeness of the discussion also makes me think of what type of people portray her in that way, taking words out of context and so forth. Of course people are afraid of compensation claims and all that crazy stuff that the media makes up about her, but Steinbach repeatedly and strongly rejected this madness. If she should ever come up with things like this, I will write her a letter of protest myself. However, I think no matter who will mention anything slightly sympathetic about the expellees or anything related, may it be Steinbach, Glotz, the Federation of Expellees - which wasn't and in 2006 most definitely isn't as bad as portrayed at all - or anyone else, will be bashed in an unfair way (even if I do admit Steinbach's case is rather odd). I believe we need to stop bickering. In my eyes the expellees are a bridge, not a problem. I don't see a problem with them also having a representation and having a museum to show their culture and history. They exist and existed, so why hide them ? It is so strange how they are often the ones who have the best contact to Polish people, at the same time they are collectively stigmatized as "Nazis" even 60 years after the war. I believe Hitler has in many cases "sacrificed" them and "the monster" is also partially responsible for their demise. At the same time there are so many diverse stories depending on the region where the expellees lived and so forth. I don't like the politization of this "issue". We are friends and we don't need to hide any part of history. Even if Nazis crimes were initial and as a whole much worse than the expulsion, the expulsion still happened and was pretty bad for the people involved. I am glad that the exhibition of the expellees in Berlin was not revisionist and besides the central expulsions (that was the exhibition's topic), it explicitly mentioned Hitler's initial land robbery in Eastern Poland (in which the Nazis deported Germans and told them to "settle on free land", in reality the Nazis had forcefully stolen the land from Poles, expelled the former inhabitants, and placed the "re-settled" people in formerly Polish houses. The majority of expellees were, however, not "re-settled people".), Polish slave workers and referred to the commonly known Nazi crimes, particularly the Holocaust. These awful Nazi crimes are very well documented in many much bigger museums also in Berlin and worldwide, which I think is necessary. The Nazi crimes are also an integral part of our highschool schedules, culture and media landscape. The exhibition also showed the forceful re-settlement of Poles from the Ukraine to Silesia, which was further empathetic to the Poles whose home is Silesia now. And it covered other expellee cases, which it placed in different context, of course. Some of Stalins expulsions were also covered, these were also mainly unknown to me. In my life I had not heard of Finnish Kalmyks ;-) For Germany it is important to know that a fifth of our population are Germans from Eastern Europe. Everybody should be tolerant, and everyone should know who he is. I am confident in a friendship between our countries. I like most expellees, most Germans and most Poles and in fact most of the world, and I realize we live in 2006. Maybe I am a dreamer, but I believe in it. Angela Merkel also supports the idea of a center against expulsions, one of Angela's grandparents is Polish. The idea that Poland and Germany are bordering but are worlds apart is not what I think. I simply said my opinion, so there is no need to comment because I am not here to try to convince anyone. Gee, I wrote too much. But still, best wishes ;-)
Thanks for writing this and for your level-headed approach. I could not agree more with most of what you wrote. I'm not against the exhibition as I've not seen it myself and I'm old enough not to believe everything I hear in the news. I do not have a strong opinion on Erika Steinbach either (although I may dislike politicians in general). However I'm against the attempts to legitimize Nazi occupation of Poland with "innocent" edits like the one explaining that Rahmel was German before WW1 or insisting on inserting German name of the town in every sentence. I'm not saying you did this, but some anonymous editor inserted this information for a purpose (or maybe out of good will). Anyway, if someone needs to learn the wider history of Rahmel/Rumia, he usually simply clicks on it and gets to the Rumia article, where its history is explained in detail, including that it belonged to West Prussia since 1772, then to Poland since WW1, then the German (Nazi ?) occupation, the POWs, forced labour camp etc. Speaking of forced labour, you wrote that unlike the fate of the expellees, the history of Polish slave workers is very well documented elsewhere. Are you sure about this ? There is a museum in Auschwitz of course but it mostly deals with what happened in that particular place. Holocaust is well documented. But are there other museums devoted to particular groups of victims of Nazism, similarly to the expellees ? I'm not trying to justify the expulsions. The Poles certainly exercised some bitter revenge on local Germans and for a couple of years following the WW2 they treated the Germans in Poland in a similar way they have been treated before themselves. But they've not dragged people from their houses and shot them in the streets for what I know. Where were the expellees then ? How many Germans did engage in the armed resistance against Nazism ? I'm sorry but I expect that if Hitler did not loose the war, they would more or less happily accept their German privileged status and silently assist in exterminating Jews, then Poles etc. Now they complain they have been treated badly after WW2 because they had to leave their houses. Tell this to the millions of Jewish and Polish civilians who were killed by the Nazis and can not complain any more. Again, I'm all for reconciliation but some things are simply not equal. All right, what I suggest we could do is work together on the Expulsion of Germans after World War II to make it a quality article instead of what it is now. --Lysytalk 05:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer Lysy. The fate of Poles is very well documented in Poland, you are a good example of how well it is known. Every Polish person I met knew that the Nazis and the Soviets had commited crimes on them. On German TV I had seen several documentations about Catholic Poles under Nazi occupation. One was so endearing with a Polish woman who since after the war lives in Szeczin/Stettin. She had a horrible childhood in the occupied country, she acoounted it and it was dreadful. The German government had invited her to visit Germany because they had found out about her terrible fate, and she was hesistant at first. Then she agreed, she had a very good time. But one time, so she told, she met an old couple and told them she is from Szeczin/Stettin. Then the old couple said: But we are from Stettin. At first the Polish lady was shocked, she explained how now it is her childrens' home. But then later she said: Who knows what they experienced in their childhood? This really was touching. And I could see that even if she had been through hell herself, she was able to show compassion. I was so touched. Sczecin is Polish now. But we need to document the past and stop stigmatizing our people respectively. Polish history and especially Nazism is part of the curriculum in Polish highschools, and that is important. The expellees' story is not about complaining, it's about showing the entire history. Interestingly, you say the revenge did not involve dragging people out on the street and shoot them. I am sorry to say this is not true. Last year my mother's fromer classmate died. As a child he was very shy and almost never spoke, he was an expelled child from Silesia. When he was young he and his mother were hiding in the hay from Poles who invaded the town (in their case it was NOT local Silesian Poles). The men were pushing their pitchforks into the hay to spike up a German, no matter who. Some of this revenge was awful, and it was not always exercized by the local Poles, but by people who came there to indisriminantly take out their revenge on just anyone. Besides, I am sure there was also officials who spured these young men and who "organized" it and used the fate of these people to get their goals. Some of these men might have realized years later what they were pushed to do. In Silesia Poles were a minority, and they often did not take part in the "revenge". The Oppeln/Opolske region is a good example of how the expulsion was not inevitable. Not every Pole "chose" to take revenge (!), this is another point worth mentioning. Some older Polish women who experienced the expulsion even now say it was wrong and awful. They themselves had often been deported from the Ukraine and were dumped in a place totally unfamiliar to them. It is important to mention that not every German was a war criminal (!). Not only active resistance groups were not war criminals (!). There was many people who were farmers and were unpolitical, others fell prey to Hitler's vicious propaganda but were not in always war criminals. The point is, unpolitical Germans or Poles have no lobby what so ever. This is a true issue. I do to some point understand how the revenge came about, but it doesn't make it right. I do think it has to be documented. In Germany and elsewhere the story of the expellees had been suppressed for some time, mainly due to ideology. The Holocaust is no secret, the crimes of Nazism are not "untold". Every day I can find something relating to it on TV or in the newspapers. But still, it is important to remember, Jews were the "main victim" of Nazism. In Poland there are now a few thousand Jews and 40 million Poles, so I cannot have been exactly the same persecution. When I was at highschool history was all about the Holocaust. I think that is important and it is a central topic, but we need to know more. More about Stalin, more about Poles, more about German expellees, more about Latvians, more about Rwanda and simply more about the world. I do not even remember if Stalin was ever mentioned with a single word at my highschool, and I went to school in Western Germany. Can you imagine this? Now this would not happen in Poland. For this I admire Poland since it has the strength to show the entire story, both Nazism (which was even worse) and Stalinism. Even Steinbach had a speech about Poland which is also on her website in which she said "Poland is not lost. For this sentence I admire the Polish people." For a long time the expellees were put into a box named "Nazis", "refugee, what do you want here?" and "shut up". However, they had the most difficult fate of post-war Germans, and for some time Germany didn't acknowledge it. Another topic but different. I only know this because I am interested in Poland, so most wouldn't know. But when Wajda released a movie about the minority of Polish collaborators during Nazism he was highly criticized by some, why? This was a minority, but they also existed. When Kaczynski attacked Tusk because Tusk's grandfather had allegedly been a Nazi collaborator, then it was ok to talk about it. It's so abusive. Does that mean Tusk is a Nazi? How unfair, especially during election time. Firstly, the Soviets had committed some horrible crimes to Catholic Poles and the Nazis afterwards of course, too. Hitler was the most disgusting and manipulative monster. But what I find interesting and never talked about: If a Polish person had suffered during the Soviet occupation, you think this person chose to support the Soviet army? Some did, but some didn't. Why? Because they were evil? Well, maybe they had lost their loved ones to the Soviets and then would not support the Soviets. How can I thus judge this Catholic Pole for not supporting the Soviets? A similar case it is for some Germans (obviously a minority in the East). If they had been deported by the Soviets or expelled after WW1, why would they support the other party who had done harm to them? I mean there are many taboos and the entrie moral discussion applies to war criminals, but not in every case to ordinary citizens of the time. Keeping in mind most of the people at this time were farmers, could they sift through propaganda when having 1 radio channel? I am not sure, because I didn't live then. But there are certain questions. Often words are mixed, German becomes Nazi, Nazis becomes war criminal, war criminal becomes concentration camp guard. Germany had 70 million people, did they all work in concentration camps? What happened to soldiers who rejected to join the army? An old man in the village next to my granddad can tell you this. The Nazis cut his penis off. Noone seems to bother mentioning these things. It doesn't justify the awful crimes of the Nazis, but then again it is not aimed at justifying anything, but at documenting history and maybe even learning from it. Concerning elections and un-responsible voting behavior, beyond Poland, it is interesting to remember that most Germans abroad (not Silesia, but Hungary for example) had no right to vote in Germany. Thus, the initial election of Hitler, the beginning of the disaster, cannot be blamed on some of these people. These topics are not as central as the major historical disasters, but these individual stories are still important I think. Yet, they serve no political interest, so why would anyone bother mentioning it? Yesterday I bought my food again at a store where my Polish friend Ms. Poljak works. She smiles, I smile, there is a positive connection. She has self-confidence, I do. She is comfortable with her identity, I am. That's why we are real friends. I don't think we need to hide, and I believe if we are honest and truthful we can document history and still remember that we live in 2006. I totally am against politicizing the issue. In Germany part of the left wing is biased toward the expellees, but ironically they often do not like the Catholic Church (and the Poles) either, only when they can use them. And some of older left wing were in fact ex-Nazis like Günther Grass, who may be a good author but at the same time he pointed fingers while he himself had been part of this mess. The right was also not always nice to the expellees either, in particular when they arrived. I was also left wing, because I am gay. But now I am pretty much at home in no political direction. The right-wing is unfair, so is the left-wing (even if my granddad was a Communist). Europe needs to get over ideologies and face reality, sometimes it's painful, but friends are honest. I like my parents even if we have gone through rough times. But we were fair and honest. That's just my opinion. And for Poland and Germany, I continue to say we do have many very positive connections,we just need to be aware and we need to respect the individual for what he or she is. Oh Gosh, I need to stop wiki, because it takes too much time and my housemates are making trouble. Take care, bye.
I understand most of what you wrote and, once more, I couldn't agree more with most of what I understood. Just for the record, the Nazis murdered about 3 million non-Polish Jews plus 3 million non-Jewish Poles plus about 3 millions Jewish Poles. Many Poles perished from the Soviets as well. But as I said, that's only for the record and and is not intended to prove or justify anything. While I very much appreciate our conversation here (and especially your effort in explaining yourself), I have the feeling that it may be getting off topic and is not directly relevant to how to improve the Erika Steinbach article. I cannot email you since you've not registered, but feel free to use my email if you desire to further contact me (you might be asked to register for this purpose, though). You may also use my talkpage if you prefer. I'd be happy to discuss the issue of Polish/German relations further, but as I said I feel this it not the right place to continue it. Thanks. --Lysytalk 18:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't need the records, I know what I need to know ;-)I also know I have been a bit broader than simply Erika Steinbach ;-) Unfortunately I will not be able to visit Wikipedia much because of lacking time, but thanks for the invitation to discuss. Take care and best wishes.

Comment by 80.128.249.151

Allegedly 'expellees' story is not about complaining, it's about showing the entire history. The statement is false, the Expellees had Nazi leaders, demanded the revision of borders to those of 1937. The majority of their stories are The world was beautiful till 1945 when the Poles came. The old ones responsible for the Nazi crimes are already dead, their children believe that their parents were angels - many of them weren't. A responsible father doesn't want his family to live near a mass execution place Piaśnica or nazi camp Stutthof. Xx236 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WOW, read what you just wrote XX. I don't need the records, I know what I need to know so what you're saying is we don't need any research or authoritative sources, we can just make up everything we want (which seems to be the extent of your input on wikipedia). A responsible father doesn't want his family to live near a mass execution place Piaśnica or nazi camp Stutthof. Yet many poles do live near those sites in Poland, why is that? are Polish fathers not responsible? according to you it seems so. Please XX, provide some evidence for your claims that Germans have forgotten history, it was all too apparent during the World Cup this year that even though the 3rd Reich is long gone, people still see all Germans as Nazis, as it seems by your writing you do.

--Jadger 11:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Jadger, I haven't written the phrase. Xx236 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Jadger, don't waste your time. I read the interesting discussion above between the often unsigned editors, but I assume were always Lysy and Richard. I had the satisfaction to feel that there was a true modus vivendi achieved between them and that we all could benefit from it. But naturally people like XX will swoop down and start the same old crap again. Or should I say come out of a mouse hole? Then they will scury to the next article and try to create more propaganda and more dissension between people. And it's Wikipedia and its reputation that suffer because of it. Dr. Dan 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that also, I was only commenting on XX last remark, which is totally non-sensical.

--Jadger 20:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr Dan, do you mean your texts? "Then they will scury to the next article and try to create more propaganda and more dissension between people"? Xx236 15:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rumia/Rahmel again ? :-(

Come on Lysy, at first you revert my edit Rumia (german: Rahmel) to just Rumia and then two sentences later you remove Rumia/Rahmel altogether and replace it by this town. At least to me it seems pretty clear that you don't want any mentioning of the German name of the city in this article at all.
This seems to be in line with your reverts where you don't allow the mentioning of the old name of Gdansk, Danzig not even in brackets, not even once in the article. Although it is pretty clear that Pommerania and Danzig had quite a mixed past with strong influences from both Poland and Germany and many people (not just Germans) know the city nowadays still as Danzig. In fact you called it arrogant to mention the German name. I know, I know this belongs to the Gdansk/Pommerania talk pages but the issue is the same...
Sorry but I can't follow your argument that the mere mentioning of the German name of a town suggests that it should belong to Germany. --Splette Image:Happyjoe.jpg Talk 10:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this is a different issue than the one discussed in the previous section. First, the article has been unprotected on October 6th. It had the Rahmel name explained all right. In a couple of days an anonymous editor added Rumia/Rahmel had been part of Germany before WW1, however it had become part of the Polish state after WW1 without any discussion or reference to the article. Anyway, the article was relatively stable for about 10 days only. Then you decided that Rahmel needs to be mentioned in in another sentence and added the German name for the third time. Why was it needed if in the very next sentence it was explained that Rumia was renamed to Rahmel ? I've watched this article for too long not to know what would happen next. In a couple of days somebody would change the order of the names and then another fly-by-night anonymous warrior would come and remove Rumia altogether. I've seen this scenario too many times. Why were you unhappy with the stable version ? As for the other edits, I'm happy to discuss them if you like. --Lysytalk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But now you are talking about a problem that does not exist. Rumia is in the article and will remain there. If someone deletes it, I will put it in again. But just as you insist to only put Rumia and not Rahmel, I insist to put both and find it a stable compromise. Both Rumia, Rahmel, the Nazi occupation and pre-WW1 are essential to Steinbach's birthplace. Lysy, I am sure you are a nice woman. But i am sorry to say that it seems like you like to control this page and to eventually always have your point of view pushed through.


History of Rumia from 1466 until 1772 ;)

from official Rumia web site

http://www.rumia.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=51

http://www.rumia.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=51

(ciekawe jak szybko helmuty to usuna ;))

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.104.9 (talk • contribs)

[edit] West Prussia

Rumia is in Pomorze Gdańskie the same as it is in West Prussia. Xx236 12:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)